Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public

[LeeEJ]

It may not be right, but i personally draw a paralell between this ruling, and middle-ages rulings that banned protestant religions. It is a clearly biased ruling that infringes on SOME peoples right to interperet their religion for themselves. I do wonder if the law specifies anything about more traditional nuns who don a similar facial obscuring habit. I highly doubt it.

I see what you mean, but then again, there really hasn't been an issue in the past where religious clothing was designed to "de-identify" the wearer. Allowing worship services in the local native language, as an example, does nothing to hide the identities of the congregation members.

 

[chico8]

The way I see this law is this: "we're going to make it illegal to look like you might do something illegal."

I do hope halloween in the Netherlands doesn't include masks, because they are outlawed now (or very well should be, to be fair). It's a very good thing the netherlands is pretty flat, as ski-resorts would suffer (most people wear ski masks to protect their faces from chapping). Gay Pride parades in Amsterdam are going to be very boring without all the costumes. And yet, i'm sure, if someone wants to perform an illegal act with some ammount of anonymity, he/she will wear a mask of some sort.

I sincerely feel that this is an imposition on anyone (muslim or otherwise) who may wear a naqib or something similar as a form of personal expression. It doesn't really matter to me if he/she is wearing it for personal reasons or religious reasons. For me, it's about freedom of expression in a society that was heretofor the most "free" of them all.

I dislike this law. If similar measures were introduced where i live, i would vocally advocate against them.

Halloween is an American tradition and exists virtually nowhere else.

Your arguments regarding skiing, Gay Pride or other parades and I might add diving to the list are very lame. There's a huge difference between wearing a mask for protective purposes or wearing one for celebrations and wearing one ALL THE TIME for religious reasons.

I have a severe hearing loss, if I can't see a person's face then I simply won't be able to understand what they say. If the teller at the bank is wearing a niqab, aren't I being discriminated against? There was a major case in the UK recently where a woman teacher wanted to wear a niqab. Guess what she was teaching, yep, English as a second language to immigrant students. How effed up is that?

Common sense needs to come first, not religious ideology.

 

[joyboytoy79]

Halloween is an American tradition and exists virtually nowhere else.

Not true. Halloween - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your arguments regarding skiing, Gay Pride or other parades and I might add diving to the list are very lame. There's a huge difference between wearing a mask for protective purposes or wearing one for celebrations and wearing one ALL THE TIME for religious reasons.

Well, sir. As was pointed out to me, this law doesn't make that distinction. BTW, a niqab isn't a mask, it's a veil.

I have a severe hearing loss, if I can't see a person's face then I simply won't be able to understand what they say. If the teller at the bank is wearing a niqab, aren't I being discriminated against? There was a major case in the UK recently where a woman teacher wanted to wear a niqab. Guess what she was teaching, yep, English as a second language to immigrant students. How effed up is that?

If a teller at a bank is wearing a niqab, can you not wait in line for a different teller? Of course, in a professional setting a PRIVATE institution (such as a bank) can set a dress code. Since employment in most countries is voluntary, businesses may set dress codes that do not comply with the religious sensibilites of all people. If you don't agree with the dress code of your employer you may seek employment elswhere. This is different, as it is a country-wide policy.

Common sense needs to come first, not religious ideology.

Funny, much common sense actually comes from religious idealogy: Common sense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forgive me for believing that diversity of religious thoughts and practices is important and should be protected. As someone who is not a member of the religious majority of my own country, i can in many ways sympathise with those women in the Netherlands who feel their religious freedom is being encroached upon.

 

[chico8]

Well, sir. As was pointed out to me, this law doesn't make that distinction. BTW, a niqab isn't a mask, it's a veil.

If a teller at a bank is wearing a niqab, can you not wait in line for a different teller? Of course, in a professional setting a PRIVATE institution (such as a bank) can set a dress code. Since employment in most countries is voluntary, businesses may set dress codes that do not comply with the religious sensibilites of all people. If you don't agree with the dress code of your employer you may seek employment elswhere. This is different, as it is a country-wide policy.

Funny, much common sense actually comes from religious idealogy: Common sense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forgive me for believing that diversity of religious thoughts and practices is important and should be protected. As someone who is not a member of the religious majority of my own country, i can in many ways sympathise with those women in the Netherlands who feel their religious freedom is being encroached upon.

Halloween as celebrated in the US, is rarely experienced in the same way in the bulk of Europe. In Catholic countries, 1 November is far more important and is a day for honoring the dead.

Dress code rules in companies are highly controversial and there is no clear cut line drawn by the law. Much of it is case by case.

Common sense predates religion by a long margin, if it didn't, early humans would have been eaten up very early on. To claim it's religious based is ludicrous.

Cultural and religious diversity is important but here in the US, women's rights are equally if not more important. Few women choose to be masked, it's often imposed upon them by their patriarchal cultures.

It was also common for women who bore children out of wedlock to be locked up in insane asylums in Ireland. Should the Catholic Church still have that right if religion, in your opinion, trumps all?

 

[D_alex8]

Not true. Halloween - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That text states: "In recent years, Halloween has also been celebrated in parts of Western Europe, such as Belgium, France and Spain." What that equates to in real terms is a little merchandising in the stores, and very rare instances of trick-or-treating. Even living in a city with a long history of US links, I've experienced all of 2 children trick-or-treating at my door in the past 3 years.

However, even if the example is bad, I am sure the idea behind it will come into play as some kind of labored test-case. Personally, my money is on somebody trying it with relation to a Santa Claus costume whose beard/fake glasses etc. obscures their face. The (pseudo-)religious aspects (especially in a nation where he is known as St. Nicholas) and element of tradition will doubtless be brought fully into play.

Ultimately, I think this (as of this time, still merely proposed) law could go either way, and that much will be dependent on whether the niqab is viewed as a recent political imposition, or as a traditional articulation of religion. My argument remains that it is very much the former, as per the fact also that it is much frowned upon in several Islamic states as well, in addition to the reasons I've outlined previously on this thread.

 

[joyboytoy79]

That text states: "In recent years, Halloween has also been celebrated in parts of Western Europe, such as Belgium, France and Spain." What that equates to in real terms is a little merchandising in the stores, and very rare instances of trick-or-treating. Even living in a city with a long history of US links, I've experienced all of 2 children trick-or-treating at my door in the past 3 years.

However, even if the example is bad, I am sure the idea behind it will come into play as some kind of labored test-case. Personally, my money is on somebody trying it with relation to a Santa Claus costume whose beard/fake glasses etc. obscures their face. The (pseudo-)religious aspects (especially in a nation where he is known as St. Nicholas) and element of tradition will doubtless be brought fully into play.

Ultimately, I think this (as of this time, still merely proposed) law could go either way, and that much will be dependent on whether the niqab is viewed as a recent political imposition, or as a traditional articulation of religion. My argument remains that it is very much the former, as per the fact also that it is much frowned upon in several Islamic states as well, in addition to the reasons I've outlined previously on this thread.

The point i was trying to make is that there are many traditions in the western culture that involve masking one's face. Most people in western society look upon the niqab as an oddity; something that has no parallel in our own societies. However, the parallels abound, and we simply take them for granted. I think you can agree with me on that, Alex.

Whether they are worn for religious, political, or traditional reasons, the niqab is a personal expression. This reminds me of victorian times, when women weren't allowed to show any skin because it would distract men and cause the end of the world as we know it... many very biased and downright discriminatory laws are written under the veil of "security."

 

[dreamer20]

I sincerely feel that this is an imposition on anyone (muslim or otherwise) who may wear a naqib or something similar as a form of personal expression. It doesn't really matter to me if he/she is wearing it for personal reasons or religious reasons. For me, it's about freedom of expression in a society that was heretofor the most "free" of them all.

Afghanistan's Taliban rulers were a classic example of Islamic oppression of women. They beat women who refused to wear the veil severely. Furthermore they forced women to quit their jobs and stay at home. Schooling for their daughters was discontinued as those rulers thought only men should be educated.

Muslim women know that this attire is concomitant with repression and not freedom. It is a form of dress imposed on them by males. It is well known that the fundamentalist Muslim does not agree with freedom of expression in the case of religious debate or that women deserve the same legal protection and humane treament as men.

Danish court dismisses Muhammad cartoons case | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

47

 

[dong20]

The point i was trying to make is that there are many traditions in the western culture that involve masking one's face. Most people in western society look upon the niqab as an oddity; something that has no parallel in our own societies. However, the parallels abound, and we simply take them for granted. I think you can agree with me on that, Alex.

Whether they are worn for religious, political, or traditional reasons, the niqab is a personal expression. This reminds me of victorian times, when women weren't allowed to show any skin because it would distract men and cause the end of the world as we know it... many very biased and downright discriminatory laws are written under the veil of "security."

There are parallels in a literal sense, Alex alluded to one but these are not considered true freedoms of expression, religious or otherwise in the sense we're discussing here because most are so embedded in the fabric of our societies as to be accepted unconciously. Alex's point, and I agree is that the wearing of the niqab is not one of them, in our society most certainly nor is it so in the wider muslim society.

NB The Victorian example is largely irrelevent, because that was primarily about morality and had nothing to do with security - unless one believed the sight of well formed ankle could incite criminal activity. It may have done but I consider it unlikely.

I can't help but feel that this is at least in part a veiled (no pun intended) attempt to appease what may be a growing backlash within a predominately Christian Western society for perhaps having conceded too much to the increasing demands of, inter alia, the Muslim faith. Perhaps in the name of tolerance for fear of tarring them with that broad Islamic terrorist brush.

But, lets be fair; many Islamic states don't extend the same level of tolerance for western 'decadence' and that apparant imbalance I'm sure has caused resentment, in fact I know it has, I hear such comments often. Of course there is a world of difference between what can be demanded in the ones home and society as a whole. Inevitably some will see tolerance as surrender, but it's not surrender it's balance. Should we set a high standard of tolerance? Of course we should, but who decides how high, you, me, our Government?

I agree with you that the use of security is weak but these days it's a convenient vehicle for such legislation. But there is precedent, many institutions (banks notably) deny the wearing of full face bike helmets etc on their premises for security reasons. In that instance no one is claiming exemption based on a historical religious right and neither should one be claimed in the case of the niqab, why because one simply doesn't exist.

But, where security is a genuine concern, any right to religious expression, real or not should be a secondary consideration. For example, are you suggesting that people should be allowed to pass US border controls without proper identification or be issued with key identity documents showing them veiled? Your indignation is heartfelt I'm sure but think about this before you say in blanket terms, it's wrong. What's really wrong is that such considerations are necessary at all.

The point made about disrimination against the difficulties veiling causes the hard of hearing; no lip reading, muffled speech etc was interesting, I don't consider that discrimination, because in day to day life no right to 'clear speech' exists though I do consider it rather inconsiderate, but then of course is asking a person to show their face against their beliefs any less so? Now, consider a professional environment; teaching, healthcare, the law or it's enforcement; would such a request still be so unreasonable?

I'm pushing the point here of course but you surely must concede there is a line to be drawn, that's easy, the hard part is knowing where to draw it.

 

[DutchBiged]

It's not that difficult.
In Holland I can go on the street smoking weed, try this in other countries, how many are oke with this?
In Holland a guy can walk hand in hand with another guy, and kiss on the street, try this in a Muslim country...

 

[dong20]

It's not that difficult.
In Holland I can go on the street smoking weed, try this in other countries,

Not legally you can't. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.

 

[Gillette]

BTW, a niqab isn't a mask, it's a veil.

It is an opaque veil, not an image from 1001 Arabian Nights. You would in fact have better luck lipreading spiderman.

This reminds me of victorian times, when women weren't allowed to show any skin because it would distract men and cause the end of the world as we know it... many very biased and downright discriminatory laws are written under the veil of "security."

From websites I have visited regarding this subject this seems to be the same argument FOR wearing the veil.

 

[LeeEJ]

If I can wear a niqab and pass myself off as a woman (albeit a tall one), and even had an ID card showing a picture of a person wearing a niqab and said that it was me,...

Wouldn't that be more than a little fucked up?

It's just that simple. It's a fantastic disguise, which is its purpose.

Fine, wear a niqab all you want, but when you get pulled over by a cop or want to pay via credit card, you'd better be able to prove who the hell you are.

 

[rob_just_rob]

It's also worth noting that covering the face is not required by Islam.

Exactly.

I am of two minds on this issue as well. If someone won't show her (or his) face, there are some things she (or he) won't be able to do. Getting a passport or driver's license are two obvious ones. The jewelry store example is another situation where the proprietor might feel uncomfortable serving someone whose face is covered.

Wearing a kirpan, cross or turban are different situations because none of these things prevent the person from being identified.

I think that barring opaque face coverings is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion - but would be open to compromises that address the concerns I set out in the first paragraph.

 

[dong20]

It's just that simple. It's a fantastic disguise, which is its purpose.

I doubt that it's that simple.

Consider two views:

"Juxtaposed to this fact the veil seems to pander to a backwards mentality: that men have the right to judge and harass women unless they take the 'necessary precautions'. It's one small step behind blaming women for being raped, and it makes me very angry because I feel it demeans the freedom we have long fought for in this country."

Feminist Claire Weaver

"Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..."

(Qur'an 24:30-31)

My bold....Surely when taken to the extreme it's no leap to read that as "Cover all but ones eyes and, possibly, veil those also."

I do find it rather frustrating that whenever a sentiment along the lines of the former is expressed it is almost inevitably seen as an attack on Islam and that Islam is overly sensitive to criticism, but of course that is generally Islamic extremists those playing the PC card and looking for something to whine about who react everytime.

Personally, while I find it rather antiquated and potentially divisive I don't care what women (or anyone) wear until such time as it prevents or hinders a necessary social interaction or, for example it creates a artificial, unreasonable division in the application of common law or regulation based solely on religious or ethnic grounds. The exemption from wearing a motorcycle helmet for Sikhs is one example of a reasonable divergence because it is rooted in a genuine longstanding tradition.

 

[LeeEJ]

I doubt that it's that simple.

Yes it is --

Me wearing a veil and a stuffed bra to look like a really tall, big woman: "Hello"

Anyone else that I'm addressing at the moment: "How are you, Miss....?"

Me: "Bond. Janice Bond."

Well, you get the idea, right?

 

[dong20]

Yes it is --

Me wearing a veil and a stuffed bra to look like a really tall, big woman: "Hello"

Anyone else that I'm addressing at the moment: "How are you, Miss....?"

Me: "Bond. Janice Bond."

Well, you get the idea, right?

Not that simple in that it was intended as a disguise, which it wasn't. Not that is couldn't be used as one. There's more to passing as woman than a stuffed bra you know.

 

[stetree]

Well, if they ban wearing of crosses (they can be sharpened and used as daggars), Stars of David (chineese throwing star, anyone?) and any other expression of religion, then i guess it's OK.

Otherwise, it's discrimination, pure and simple.

There have been several cases of people being made to remove these in the uk esp in school as they ar seen as being offensive. On the same score there has been talk of removing the single religion schools (i.e. catholic and c of e) but talk of introducing muslim schools so boys and girls can be taught seperatly. Not sure if this debate is still going on as I work night shifts (hence attrocious spelling and grammer) and the only news I see is old (or in the sport). But this is the sort of double standards I have come to expect from tony blairs government and nothing that bunch of inbred tossers do or say suprises me any more.

 

[DC_DEEP]

This is just too funny. Here in the United States of Sexual Repression, you get arrested for wearing too little clothing. Now the Dutch want to arrest women for wearing too much clothing.

Instead of making it a religious issue, the Dutch government should just simply draft an elementary-school-style dress code. Anyone deviating from the dress code, in public, could be fined or arrested. Hell, just make it a private-prep-school-type dress code, and have uniforms. Wouldn't it be cute if all the Dutch women wore v-neck sweaters, plaid skirts, knee socks, and saddle oxford shoes, and all the men wore a white shirt, red tie, navy blue blazer with a crest on the pocket, and navy blue pants and shiny black shoes?

 

[DC_DEEP]

"Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..."

(Qur'an 24:30-31)

Is part of the problem that these guys don't know the difference between "face" and "bosom????

 

[rob_just_rob]

Is part of the problem that these guys don't know the difference between "face" and "bosom????

They're not the only ones. Thus the number of guys who think they're making eye contact while staring at her chest.

Uniforms, particularly the catholic schoolgirl type :smile: